Back
1964 Supreme(Online)(All) 14
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
D. S. Mathur, J.
Shamshei Bahadur – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
C. Misc. W. No. 500 of 1960
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Rent Control
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Jurisdiction of authorities under the Act - Courts can only quash orders when it can be shown that jurisdiction was exercised without legal cause or was in contradiction with the provisions of the Act. (Paras 36, 54)
(C) Natural Justice - Orders affecting tenant rights cannot be made without giving involved parties a hearing; failure to comply renders such orders invalid. (Paras 58, 69)
Facts of the case:
Petition challenging the restoration of an earlier allotment order by the State Government, which permitted a landlord to sub-let premises to another without valid authority. The petitioner contended he was wrongfully evicted as a tenant.
Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed, quashing the State Government's order due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of procedural fairness, reinstating the previous order affirming the petitioner as tenant.
Issues: The main issues included whether sub-letting permissions were validly granted and whether the State Government's actions were within jurisdiction and adhered to legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the authorities must ensure that sub-letting permissions are aligned with the need for a primary tenancy and cannot make arbitrary allotment decisions without proper limits as dictated by the Act.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition details launched under article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. history and ownership of the disputed property. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. lease and sub-lease details and concerns raised. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. rent control officer's actions and subsequent government involvement. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. preliminary objections raised on petition's maintainability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. examination of the jurisdiction and validity of due procedures. (Para 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 7. assessing authority's jurisdiction under the act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. determining the nature of the transactions and alterations made. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. validity of the rent control officer's determination related to the law. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. court's interpretation on jurisdictional powers related to letting. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. state government's jurisdiction and limitations according to the act. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. finality and review of the orders under s.7. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 13. implications of fictitious elements in tenancy. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 14. nature of the state government's authority in administrative matters. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 15. defining error by jurisdiction in administrative actions. (Para 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 16. examination of natural justice in relation to rent control decisions. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 17. concluding the information pertaining to rent control laws. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 18. final order on petitioner's status as tenant. (Para 70) |
1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by Shamshei Bahadur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, or a like writ or direction, to quash all the proceedings leading to and including the order dated 19-2-1959, Annexure--'F' to the affidavit, of the Town Rationing Officer / District Supply Officer, Lucknow (to be referred hereinafter as the Rent Control and Eviction Officer), respondent No. 4 who was exercising the powers of the District Magistrate under the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be referred hereinafter as the Act), and also the order of the State Government dated 8-2-1960, Annexure--'K' to the affidavit, whereby the order dated 19-2-1959 was re - established. The State Government has been impleaded as respondent No. 1 by the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No. 4 not to give effect to the order of the State Government and to continue to treat the petitioner as a tenant of the premises in question in pursuance of his order dated 17-1-1959, Annexure--'E' to the affidavit. After the proceeding under S.7-6 of the Act was initiated by M/s. Property Agents, respondent No. 3, the petitioner had the petition amended by in pleading Munsif (South), Lucknow, as respondent No. 5, and by including a prayer for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the above proceeding under S.7 - B, and also for a writ of prohibition to direct the Munsif not to take any further action in the proceeding.
2. In the writ petition serious allegations were made against the conduct of Sri Jag Mohan Singh Negi, the then Minister Incharge of the department. He was consequently impleaded as respondent No. 6, so that no order may be passed without giving him a hearing. Sri Negi filed a counter - affidavit, but for purposes of the present proceeding it is not necessary to give the details of the allegations made and the versions of the respondents on this point. It may simply be mentioned that according to the petitioner, respondent No. 6 had acted arbitrarily with a view to help Messrs. Ganeshdas Ramgopal, respondent No. 2, in recovering rent in excess of the reasonable rent as was not permissible under the law. Sri Negi and also respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have denied these allegations and their version is that he had throughout acted impartially without an attempt to show favour to anyone.
3. In the writ petition
